mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Verify, Repair, Repeat, or Stop? Robust Stopping for Noisy Verify-Repair Loops in LLM Agents

arXiv 2607.17641 ↗First posted 20 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use. When both the verifier and the repairer are noisy, repair can damage already-correct plans, and reported acceptance keeps rising while true validity falls, so existing methods lack a principled basis for deciding when repair should stop. We propose VRR-Stop, a robust stopping framework for noisy verify-repair-repeat (VRR) loops. A four-parameter noise model separates verifier false acceptance and false rejection from the repair and damage behavior of the repairer. Belief filtering turns repeated verification votes into an estimate of committed validity, and the loop commits or repairs according to the sign of the true marginal gain, which requires only sign identifiability rather than accurate recovery of all parameters. When verifier discrimination approaches zero, calibration itself fails and estimation error can flip the stopping sign, so we pair VRR-Stop with VRR-Guard, an estimation-free fallback that replaces the incumbent candidate only under a sufficient verification margin. On a GSM8K stress setting, VRR-Stop improves final true validity by 60.6 percentage points over fixed five-round repair at an average cost of 0.72 repair rounds. Across settings, stopping reliability is governed jointly by verifier discrimination and the decision margin rather than by the absolute size of estimation error.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 24 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

Builds on

24 of 31 references.

References · 24

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  3. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  4. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  5. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  6. 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
  7. 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 783
  8. 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 480
  9. 2025The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoningcited by 415
  10. 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 240
  11. 2024Feedback Loops With Language Models Drive In-Context Reward Hackingcited by 77
  12. 2024The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resamplingcited by 53
12 more
  1. 2025Sample, Scrutinize and Scale: Effective Inference-Time Search by Scaling Verificationcited by 50
  2. 2025Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluatorscited by 44
  3. 2025Inference-Time Reward Hacking in Large Language Modelscited by 34
  4. 2024Spontaneous Reward Hacking in Iterative Self-Refinementcited by 26
  5. 2026Noisy but Valid: Robust Statistical Evaluation of LLMs with Imperfect Judgescited by 24
  6. 2025Uncertainty-Aware Step-wise Verification with Generative Reward Modelscited by 22
  7. 2025When Does Verification Pay Off? A Closer Look at LLMs as Solution Verifierscited by 15
  8. 2025ROC-n-reroll: How verifier imperfection affects test-time scalingcited by 12
  9. 2025Scaling Flaws of Verifier-Guided Search in Mathematical Reasoningcited by 10
  10. 2025A Probabilistic Inference Scaling Theory for LLM Self-Correctioncited by 9
  11. 2025Solve-Detect-Verify: Inference-Time Scaling with Flexible Generative Verifiercited by 8
  12. 2025Balanced Accuracy: The Right Metric for Evaluating LLM Judges -- Explained through Youden's J statisticcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Structured Feedback Improves Repair in an LLM Agent Loop
  2. 2026Repair the Amplifier, Not the Symptom: Stable World-Model Correction for Agent Rollouts
  3. 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
  4. 2026Verification as an Architectural Layer for LLM Agents: A V-Model Design, and a Pilot Study of Its Deterministic Core
  5. 2025The Dual-State Architecture for Reliable LLM Agents
  6. 2026From Approval to Execution: Reconstruction-Aware Repair Analysis for LLM-Agent Software
  7. 2026Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair
  8. 2026Reason Less, Verify More: Deterministic Gates Recover a Silent Policy-Violation Failure Mode in Tool-Using LLM Agents